Well, I am a Democrat, but I can't say my skivvies are in a bunch over her running. Polls show her looking pretty strong, but on a lot of the liberal blogs I visit, I see a whole lotta meh.

At this point in the cycle, the polls are mostly about name recognition.

Hilary was positioning herself for a run for President when she decided to run for the Senate. For a rookie Senator, she was placed on some plum committees, especially Budget and Armed Services among others.

When she skipped the early (Midwestern) primaries/caucuses where she didn't want to take a chance on losing, she allowed Obama to take an insurmountable lead. So she took the Sec of State job to further position herself for the next time.

All that is needed now is a Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush show down for president. Possibly people would finally wake up if those were the "only" two choices. On the other hand, possibly people would just come to the conclusion that it is pointless and stay home rather than head out to the polls.

I kind of want a Kennedy / Clinton / Bush shared monarchy. Chelsea Clinton and Barbara Bush can be the start for the next generation. Elections and all of the money associated with them would end and power could just "hop" from one dynasty to the other every 6 or 8 years.

All that is needed now is a Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush show down for president.

Jeb is the military industrial complex's wet dream. He's an original member of the Project for the New American Century (along with Cheney and Rumsfeld) - the neocon group who gave us the Iraq war and wants nothing short of eternal war with the middle east.

That is the point. There would be a race for what is arguably the most important job in America and you would have two of the worst people imaginable running. Because it is pretty much a two party system there would be a guarantee that one of these two extremely distasteful people would get in. Possibly it would cause people to wake up and pay a little attention to the whole process rather than just being presented with a choice of two candidates with their names on the ballot (though i doubt it...)

Bush and Clinton. Doesn't the USA have anybody with a different last name that could run?Speaking of it. Seeing the Hillary piece and learning about the 100 HIV/AIDS scientists killed on that plane shoot down reminded me of a Clinton scandal that nobody (in the USA) ever talked/talks about.

Remember when Bill covered up the scandal of buying prisoner's blood and selling it to other countries? And it was tainted with various diseases, like HIV, HepC, etc? Not many (in the USA) heard about it but was a huge scandal in Canada and the UK where people got infected due to the blood and was pretty famous in Arkansas. The rest of the US was preoccupied with all the other scandals (or fringe theories of "death lists") so never caught on to this one. I wonder if an AIDS activist would ask Billary about it sometime?

... I wonder if an AIDS activist would ask Billary about it sometime?...

Aids activists are part of the Democrat coalition, as is the Media.

The various issues the Libs champion are secondary to Politics. Power is everything to them. Bill isn't going to be asked about it, and no journalistic investigation is going to happen, because that invites scrutiny of the Party. It's why the Libs always get a free pass

As is Academia; most of Hollywood (including Tom Selleck, but not Patricia Heaton); Latinos (except Cubans in Miami), Blacks (except guys named Herman); Chinese Americans; all Women who enjoy thinking for themselves; all white Men who have enough self-esteem not to have to contrast themselves with other races; Christians who actually believe in the Gospels, not just Revelations; Japanese; Vietnamese; Cambodians; Hawaiians; Eskimos; Sioux; Mohicans; Navajo; Cherokee; people with disabilities, people who support people with disabilities; people who believe in justice; people who work for a living; people who believe there are better days ahead rather than pine for the white male hegemony of yesteryear...

In other words, pretty much everybody who isn't a pissed off white guy.

As is Academia; most of Hollywood (including Tom Selleck, but not Patricia Heaton); Latinos (except Cubans in Miami), Blacks (except guys named Herman); Chinese Americans; all Women who enjoy thinking for themselves; all white Men who have enough self-esteem not to have to contrast themselves with other races; Christians who actually believe in the Gospels, not just Revelations; Japanese; Vietnamese; Cambodians; Hawaiians; Eskimos; Sioux; Mohicans; Navajo; Cherokee; people with disabilities, people who support people with disabilities; people who believe in justice; people who work for a living; people who believe there are better days ahead rather than pine for the white male hegemony of yesteryear...

In other words, pretty much everybody who isn't a pissed off white guy.

You left out the America haters, who have seized the Party and who lie to those you listed in order to keep them in the fold.

That is the point. There would be a race for what is arguably the most important job in America and you would have two of the worst people imaginable running. Because it is pretty much a two party system there would be a guarantee that one of these two extremely distasteful people would get in. Possibly it would cause people to wake up and pay a little attention to the whole process rather than just being presented with a choice of two candidates with their names on the ballot (though i doubt it...)

I'd vote for Hillary over Jeb Bush. I'd vote for Hillary over Ted Cruz. But I'd vote for Rand Paul over Hillary. I'm sure the establishment is going to give him the same treatment they gave his dad though.

Offhand I'd say someone who makes it a point to state he wants to 'fundamentally change the country' isn't someone who likes much about it the way it is.

Obock Barama didn't create this Leftwing hate of America, it created him.

I don't think anyone honestly ever thought Obama liked the country, or even had any even basic allegiance to it. Of course the country has problems, which one doesn't? But there was a significant number of people, Obama's true political base, who think the USA is the number one problem in the world. Remember people think it was blacks or poor people who were Obama's base. Not true. He had lots of problems locally in Chicago from those communities due to his foreignness, elitism, and views. He had some tough elections that were only one through brutal tactics including gaining access to court sealed documents and such. It was the mainly true-believing white "radicals" and cynical, corrupt machine politicians who were his real base, initially.

I don't think anyone honestly ever thought Obama liked the country, or even had any even basic allegiance to it...

After all those years of taking advantage of Affirmative Action to go to the best schools and then being handed plum jobs by the Daily Machine, when Barry was nominated Michelle was finally proud of her county.

Offhand I'd say someone who makes it a point to state he wants to 'fundamentally change the country' isn't someone who likes much about it the way it is.

Obock Barama didn't create this Leftwing hate of America, it created him.

You mean the constant racial strife, the constant warring, the creation of offshore tax shelters, the never-ending mass shootings, the constant outsourcing of American jobs, the never-ending demonization of the poor, the arrogant paternalism of white male hegemony, the collapse of economy thanks to laissez -faire supervision of financial products, the outright lies of conservatives about raising the minimum wage, in fact the suppressed wages and limited buying power of commodity markets gone mad?

After all those years of taking advantage of Affirmative Action to go to the best schools and then being handed plum jobs by the Daily Machine, when Barry was nominated Michelle was finally proud of her county.

Probably lasted about a day.

Or at least until he got a face full of teabagging glory.

I love this country, and I am disappointed about the whiny, selfish, grubby teabagger squeaky wheel. As a country, we are so much better than the narrow vision of property activists.

I love this country, and I am disappointed about the whiny, selfish, grubby teabagger squeaky wheel. As a country, we are so much better than the narrow vision of property activists.

In all seriousness, I wonder what your views on property are? You mention "property activists", what does that mean? This Supreme Court you usually vilify for its "right wing" rulings recently (HobbyLobby, Corporate Speech, Gun rights, etc) made one of the worst rulings vis-a-vis private property in our history. So you should support them, at least on that. But, seriously, what is your view on property? It seemed, after you huffed and puffed a bit, earlier to say that the government shouldn't seize wages without at least a court hearing. But do you feel same on other types of property? Are you against, on principle, private ownership of property? Only real property or all property? Portable possessions? Bank accounts? Do you support Hollywood (big Obama supporters) in their persecution of file-sharers (after all why should that media property be held dear?) Where do you draw the line? And when does one become a "property activist?"

In all seriousness, I wonder what your views on property are? You mention "property activists", what does that mean? This Supreme Court you usually vilify for its "right wing" rulings recently (HobbyLobby, Corporate Speech, Gun rights, etc) made one of the worst rulings vis-a-vis private property in our history. So you should support them, at least on that. But, seriously, what is your view on property? It seemed, after you huffed and puffed a bit, earlier to say that the government shouldn't seize wages without at least a court hearing. But do you feel same on other types of property? Are you against, on principle, private ownership of property? Only real property or all property? Portable possessions? Bank accounts? Do you support Hollywood (big Obama supporters) in their persecution of file-sharers (after all why should that media property be held dear?) Where do you draw the line? And when does one become a "property activist?"

One is a "property activist" when you place property and wealth above all else. You value your treasure so much you care only about your wealth. You do anything, say anything to keep it, even lie and commit crimes. You misrepresent anyone you feel may, in any way, endanger any part of your acquisitions. Whether there's any real danger, it doesn't matter. It yours, by God, and none shall breach! Society, be damned! Country, be damned!

The reality is that we fought a war over the definition of property. The side that included black human beings as property lost. Yet that side claims God is on their side. Go figure.

Property belongs to one who earns it.Earns, not homesteads native American land. (google: homestead act)

(Ironically, part of the Homestead Act was to prevent slave owners from extending to other territories. Yet, from where did the land come? It had all belonged to native Americans, even if the French or Spanish claimed it. Also, the Homestead Act no longer exists, so even if you wanted to, you couldn't have the same advantages people who now own large tracts of this nation had - free land.)

Earns, not connives with arcane indentures, creating perpetual debt where blacks signed back their land and sharecropped what should've been theirs.(google:sharecropping)Earned, not where a company like Bain bribes a management team with bonuses for awarding them a contract to manage all assets, then lays off thousands of people, saddles the company with debt to pay management fees to themselves, then breaks the company apart while paying themselves fees to manage the bankruptcy. (google: Bain capital)Earned, not connived by arranging low grade mortgage securities into a pool for unwary investors, then arranging to be the counterparty to those securities, knowing full well they were misgraded and going to fail. (google: John Paulson)Earned, not borrowing $6 million from Daddy, then "parlaying" it into billions by holding a city hostage and dodging out of obligations through bankruptcy. (google: Donald Trump)

I think you get the point. What's ironic is the people who've schemed and connived the most are the loudest advocates about "stealing" what's theirs. As if anyone, ever in this nation's history, has been taxed into the poor house.

One is a "property activist" when you place property and wealth above all else. You value your treasure so much you care only about your wealth. You do anything, say anything to keep it, even lie and commit crimes. You misrepresent anyone you feel may, in any way, endanger any part of your acquisitions. Whether there's any real danger, it doesn't matter. It yours, by God, and none shall breach! Society, be damned! Country, be damned!

The reality is that we fought a war over the definition of property. The side that included black human beings as property lost. Yet that side claims God is on their side. Go figure.

Property belongs to one who earns it.Earns, not homesteads native American land. (google: homestead act)

(Ironically, part of the Homestead Act was to prevent slave owners from extending to other territories. Yet, from where did the land come? It had all belonged to native Americans, even if the French or Spanish claimed it. Also, the Homestead Act no longer exists, so even if you wanted to, you couldn't have the same advantages people who now own large tracts of this nation had - free land.)

Earns, not connives with arcane indentures, creating perpetual debt where blacks signed back their land and sharecropped what should've been theirs.(google:sharecropping)Earned, not where a company like Bain bribes a management team with bonuses for awarding them a contract to manage all assets, then lays off thousands of people, saddles the company with debt to pay management fees to themselves, then breaks the company apart while paying themselves fees to manage the bankruptcy. (google: Bain capital)Earned, not connived by arranging low grade mortgage securities into a pool for unwary investors, then arranging to be the counterparty to those securities, knowing full well they were misgraded and going to fail. (google: John Paulson)Earned, not borrowing $6 million from Daddy, then "parlaying" it into billions by holding a city hostage and dodging out of obligations through bankruptcy. (google: Donald Trump)

I think you get the point. What's ironic is the people who've schemed and connived the most are the loudest advocates about "stealing" what's theirs. As if anyone, ever in this nation's history, has been taxed into the poor house.

For someone who hates corporations and the idea of property so much you use, and mention, "google" so frequently.

For someone who hates corporations and the idea of property so much you use, and mention, "google" so frequently.

I hate neither. I resent the idea that somehow only 1% of us are smart enough to run this country's economic activity. I am in disbelief that so many companies are so interested in more than improving their own business that they spend so much value trying to shape political discourse. I despise inherited wealth. Don't tell me I don't work hard enough, silver spoon.I'm all for people owning and building a business but, if you get an SBA grant to do so, don't come back 10 years later and start cheating on your taxes by overstating expenses with fake invoices.

I'm all for people owning a business but, if your business causes someone harm, stand up and do the right thing. I hate watching stories every day about some scumbag who took a deposit for something then overnight closed up his shop and won't refund money. (the conservative answer is something pithy like throwing their hands up in the air and saying "Caveat Emptor")

Just be decent. If you can't make money that way, then check your model; don't just forge ahead.

As to property? Sure. Own a nice car. Big screen TV. A decent home. Why not?

Just remember, you are part of society, not an island, so you have to pay for these things and for the protections society provides for your property.

Ironically, I do resent Google; they're all about "Do No Evil" yet sold their ass (and yours) out for a buck.

"With the president setting aside all these funds for immigrants and forsaken African-American community and African-American families, I think that’s a disgrace. And Barack is from the heart of 55th in the City of Chicago… He will probably go down as the worst president ever elected. Bill Clinton was the African-American president.“